"Mad or ‘Mad like a Fox’?" Topic

We often hear about "mad" commanders—men whose behaviour seemed irrational, reckless or outright unhinged.

But in some cases, that apparent madness masked bold thinking, deception or a willingness to take risks others wouldn't. Or maybe it *was* just advancing age & senility "talking"?

Mad commanders? Peter III of Russia, Shaka Zulu or Ney at Waterloo? (PTSD) Others?

Who fits the bill as "mad like a fox" rather than simply incompetent or unstable?

Obvious starting point might be Caligula—often portrayed as insane, though even there the reality is debated.

Others sometimes mentioned:

George S. Patton – erratic persona but operational brilliance
Erwin Rommel – highly aggressive, occasionally reckless
Thomas Cochrane – audacious to the point of disbelief

Where's the line between genius, calculated risk, and genuine and dangerous instability?

And from a gaming point of view—how (if at all) should rules represent this? Several rule sets allow for command traits, including craziness. eg "The Men who Would Be Kings".

George Armstrong Custer comes to mind,unfortunately you can't incorporate such behaviors into a wargame unless you are playing a D&D type of game in which you have a character, and even then you will get different outcomes because not every player will play the character the same.

Mel Gibson… does he count?

"Mad" Anthony Wayne?

Mad Dog Mattis.

Colonel Frederick Gustavus Burnaby is a very good example of someone who could fall into either camp: unbelievably brave—or driven by something closer to a death wish?

Clearly respected by his peers and popular with the rank and file, he was by all accounts courteous (never given to crudity), calm under pressure, and notably modest—qualities one might wish more leaders possessed, mad or otherwise.

Yet he effectively invited himself to the Sudan—armed with a fowling piece—and accompanied the Desert Column to the Battle of Abu Klea, where he was killed, all without official orders.

I've always found him a fascinating—and hard to categorise—figure.

Peter III, mad or was that just the official story to justify getting rid of him?

As with anyone cited above, without a proper clinical assessment it's difficult to label historical figures as "mad" in any meaningful medical sense.

Figures like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin are often described that way, but whether that reflects genuine mental illness, ideological extremity or simply the consequences of power is very hard to separate from the historical record.

Take Peter III of Russia. His behaviour was so erratic and pro-Prussian that one wonders whether he was "mad"… or simply extremely committed to a very unpopular hobby.

There's usually a positive and a negative side to such "madness": a heroic flaw to compensate for the heroic ability, if you like. Ruleswise, you can reflect that by:
- giving a +1 (or equivalent) on whatever axis the madness is beneficial;
- giving a -1 (or obliging the general to act in some appropriately negative way) on the dimension where it is harmful.

Eg, if some commander was renowned for being dangerously aggressive:
- adds +1 in an assault;
- but MUST attempt an assault if enemy moves within 6".

Mad Dog Mattis.

Supposedly that was given by the press. His real call sign is CHAOS from the officers who served under him. It means "Colonel Has Another Outstanding Solution". I think it's a left handed compliment.

Wolfhag

'Wolfhag' is spot on.

Where's the line between genius, calculated risk, and genuine and dangerous instability

If you win, it's the first one. If you lose, it's the second one.

"L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace"

Welcome to adrenaline.

Andrew has hit the nail on the head.